We have received three asylum approvals after interviews two weeks ago.

The first case is a woman who engaged in activities in the United States that are deemed illegal in her own country; the second case is a man who has suffered persecution in his country due to his political views. The third case involves a couple who has suffered persecution due to their country's family planning policy more than 10 years ago.

We also received a fraud waiver approval and I-485 approval shortly after the waiver is approved. The client came in as an F-1 student. She never attended school. Immigration found her inadmissible for fraud. We were retained after the USCIS requested 601 Waiver.

Finally, our EB1A chef-client and his family have landed in the US after their immigrant visas are granted in Guangzhou, China. This client is from northeast China and he plans to open a restaurant in the Bay Area. We are looking forward to his new adventure in the U.S.

1. Client Got His Asylum Status Back After 8 Years Immigration Court Fight

Client received asylum in 2006. Soon after that his lawyer was disbarred.

In 2010, Immigration put client in removal proceedings, alleging his asylum was obtained by fraud.

After several delays, we had an individual hearing. The Immigration Judge denied government's request to revoke our client's asylum status.

2. Client Got His Green Card Back in Immigration Court after Admitting to Marriage Fraud

Client received green card in 2002. He later applied for naturalization. His N-400 was denied for marriage fraud. He was put in removal proceedings with his individual hearing set for September, 2021.

We moved to advance his hearing for almost 3 years. We persuade the judge to return his green card back.

It’s worth noting that client had hired another lawyer from Ohio and that lawyer instructed him to lie to the court. Had this client followed that lawyer's advice, he will be certainly deported to China.

Ms. Huang came to the US in 2010. She applied for asylum shortly after her arrival. Unfortunately her asylum was denied by the asylum office; then her asylum was denied by immigration judge, her appeal was dismissed by the Board of immigration Appeals and finally, her petition for review was dismissed by the 9th Circuit of Appeals. Ms. Huang received a letter from the Immigration asking her to report to the ICE for departure to China.

Ms. Huang hired us at that time.

After two years of lengthy adjudication of visa petition and waivers, Ms. Huang received immigrant visa last week In Guangzhou, China.

2. Asylum Seeker Receive Grant of Asylum from Immigration Judge in One Hour

Mr. Ge was referred to court after the asylum interview. He hired us shortly before the master hearing.

The Asylum Office states that Mr. Ge is not credible and that even if he is credible his experience in China does not constitute persecution under the US Asylum Law.

Mr. Ge was despair when he hired us.

With proper preparation and careful lead research, we find a way to persuade the immigration judge why Mr. Ge's asylum application should be granted.

Within one hour of the hearing the application is granted and the government will not appeal.

Asylum is very complicated. Not so many lawyers can really do a good job in court.

Although China relaxed its family planning policy, clients who received past persecution based that policy continue to receive asylum approvals.

In one of our most recent cases, our client was sterilized after she gave birth to her third child in China.

She came to the US in 2016 on a B-2 visa and she applied for asylum.

Without more she received asylum approval.

The key to a successful asylum application is to carefully identify the correct ground(s) that is protected under the US asylum law; truthfully provide client's experience to the asylum office; thoroughly prepare client for the interview.

Unfortunately many asylum seekers got their cases denied or referred to immigration court because their asylum applications were not prepared based on the above three important principles.

Her asylum application was referred to immigration court. At the suggestion of an immigration consultant, she married a US citizen and thought she did not have to attend hearing. She was ordered removed by judge in absentia. Her marriage case did not go anywhere and later was denied by the USCIS.

Ms. Lin's case went to the 9th Circuit of Appeals and was remanded to immigration judge in 2010.

Ms. Lin moved to San Francisco and hired us in 2012.

After many delays and continuance, Ms. Lin finally had her day in court last week.

Immigration judge commented that this case was well documented and we just needed to focus on several key issues.

After 10 minutes direct examination, it became clear that Ms. Lin has established well-founded fear of future persecution in her home country.

Government waived appeal.

Although this case has been pending for an extraordinarily long time, the final result is very good and now Ms. Lin can apply for her daughter to join her in the United States.

We are very happy to announce that today we received approval for an asylum application for a Mormon Christian client. This was a difficult case because there are many news media reports that describe the Mormon human rights situation in China as very positive.

We did careful research. We presented that evidence to the asylum office to show that our client could not return to China without giving up her religious believes or facing persecution.

Today we learned that the asylum office was persuaded by our argument. We are very pleased for our client.

At least in some parts of the United States, there are ways to keep your marriage based green card even if the USCIS/ICE alleges, and you admit, that your marriage was not bona fide.

There are certain requirements under the current legal standard and careful and strategic planning are key to success in this type of cases.

We just won such a case recently.

Client came to the US in early 2000 on a conditional green card. Her joint petition to remove condition was denied. She later married a US citizen and the I-130 visa petition was revoked after the USCIS discovered the first marriage was fraudulent. Client's lawyer for this I-130 cases was informed the marriage fraud but did not stop her from lying to the USCIS at the I-130 interview.

Client was referred to immigration court. We were hired after the removal proceedings started.

After many delays and change of judges, we finally prevailed in court.

Client could apply for citizenship right away.

Lessons here are the same we always tell our clients/readers: not all the immigration lawyers are the same; never rely on immigration consultant's words to prosecute your immigration applications; once you find the right lawyer your case is 50% successfully.

Client spent 2 years in a Middle East country and he came to the US as an F-1 student in a community college. He had no past persecution and his entire claim is based on fear of future persecution due to his ethic race. Conditions in his hometown have deteriorated in the past several years.

Application was filed in early March, 2018 and he was interviewed in mid-April.

Client is a student who just finished her master's degree in Southern California. We filed her asylum in later January, 2018. Client had her asylum interview in late March and she received final approval last week.

Client has no past persecution in her country. her asylum is based on her fear of future persecution based on her ethnic background.

Our client, Ms. Yang, came to the US in 2002 on a B-2 visa. She lied about a lot of things in her visa application, prepared by Chinese “Zhong Jie”.

She hired a local immigration consultant in Los Angeles to file her asylum application shortly after her arrival. Her asylum application was referred to court after interview. Before individual hearing, Ms. Yang married a US citizen and filed I-130/485. Her husband did not appear for the interview and the case was denied by the USCIS.

She had her asylum hearing in 2005. The immigration judge denied her application for lack of credibility.

Ms. Yang appealed her case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board remanded the case back to immigration court as the Board pointed out that the immigration judge did not have sufficient reason to deny the case on credibility ground.

Ms. Yang moved to the bay Area and married her current husband, a US citizen, and she hired us.

This case has been continued by immigration judge many times while the judges initially on her case all retired.

After many maneuvers with the court and the USCIS, we had an individual hearing in 2016, when the government raised the visa fraud issue and asked Ms. Yang to file the waiver.

Waiver was filed and we just had the final hearing. Although the waiver claim was weak, the immigration judge granted the waiver and Ms. Yang now is a permanent resident of the United States.

To increase her chances for success, we also prepared the asylum claim and were ready to proceed, even though we had to spend lots of time to prepare the asylum case.

O-1 visa is for alien with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or athletes. It must be sponsored by a US employer and it lasts for 3 years and it may be extended. There are no quotes for O-1 visa.

Our client is a recent graduate of a California art college majoring in music. She published some of her works and was in several documentary films as the composer.

She found a job in a music school as musical consultant.

Frankly this case is not very strong. It took her more than 10 months to collect documents and we filed her application one day before her EAD expired.

We gave honest evaluation on each case. Clients have to make their own decision if they wish to proceed. There are risks involved. Fortunately, for our clients, the outcomes are usually good.

"Administrative processing" means additional review, investigation and evaluate visa applicant's eligibility to receive the visa. It could happen in F, H, L, O or any other types of visa.

This process, according to the US embassy/consulate/State Department websites, would usually take about 1-2 months. In reality, many visa applicants experience long delay.

Recently one of our clients in Shanghai experienced 6 month long delay without any decision.

Luckily in the United States, there is a legal process to address this problem. Its call federal district court lawsuit against the USCIS, State Department and the Embassy/Consulate for the unreasonable delay in its administrative processing.

We filed the lawsuit in January and the Consulate re-interviewed our client last week and issued the L-1 visa.

This type of lawsuit is absolutely very effective in compelling the US government to act.

If you have long delayed petition or application before the USCIS or the US Consulate/Embassy, please contact us.

Mr. D came to the US in 2010 as a student and he graduated with a master's degree in 2014. While in college, he joined a church and baptized.

He applied for asylum in the fall of 2015 and he just received approval.

Mr. D actually did not do very well at interview, making several mistakes and contradicting himself on several points. At the end of the interview our attorney managed to rectify the case and now Mr. D is a very happy man.

Our client was refused immigrant visa filed by her sister. The consulate claims that our client entered into a fraudulent marriage with her USC, ex-husband. The approved I-130 filed by her ex-husband was later revoked by the USCIS. Five years later when client went to the immigrant visa interview filed by her USC sister, the consulate refused the visa and asked her to file waiver.

Waiver is very difficult to get.

Properly document the extreme hardship and persuade the USCIS to grant the waiver are one of the most difficult types of cases.

Early 2017, we had a consultation with an anxious mom, her two children just got denied for their I-485 green card applications. This mom and her husband immigrated to the United States through their oldest child. She had applied I-130s for two young kids but the priority dates were not current at that time. In order to avoid her family apart, they decided to have two kids come to the U.S. with them under B-2 visas. After arriving, they consulted a very experienced immigration attorney who also practices in San Francisco Bay Area. The lawyer told them they could change the kids’ status to F-1 students first and wait for the priority date. In doing so, both kids could remain in the U.S. with their parents and get their green cards here.

Unfortunately, this seemingly workable plan was in trouble when the change status applications were denied in August 2015. Two children immediately lost their status as their B2 visa expired and F-1 student status were denied. The lawyer charged them money to file motion to reconsider/reopen. He assured clients that their children would be considered in legal status while the motion was pending. As of today, clients have not heard anything from the USCIS about the outcome of the motion.

In December 2015 when visa numbers became current, the lawyer helped them to submit I-485s. Several months later, two children were interviewed by the USCIS. In early 2017, USCIS denied their I-485s on the ground that, at the time of I-485 filing, they did not have valid legal status in the US. Their lawyer then suggested them to file another motion to contest USCIS decision. Finally, the mother realized that maybe her lawyer was wrong all this time. She was referred by her friend to talk to us about her case.

Being an immigration lawyer, one must be clear and understand the immigration rules thoroughly. Details determine success or failure. First, at the time the B-2 visa expires, the school has not yet started for more than 30 days. From status changed from B-2 to F, USCIS allows when the school anticipated start date is within 30 days after B visa expires. If more than 30 days gap in between, the application will be denied even the client had submitted it before B visa expires. Second, even a motion was filed; client will not have valid legal status in the US. Client cannot file I-485 during this time. Finally, if client followed her former lawyer's advice to challenge the I-485 denials, her two children would have been in much worse situation today.

We changed the strategy completely. It took less than ten months to have the case succeeded. Today, two kids have received their green card.

1. We won 3 asylum grants in the past month in immigration court. All of them are based on religious ground. Asylum office referred these cases for "lack of detail" or "inconsistencies). We all know that many times asylum office exaggerates minor issues to deny or refer applicants to immigration court. We have maintained 100% success record in immigration court this year.

2. H-1B approved after Level 1 wage RFE

Level 1 wage RFE is new and feared for this year’s H-1B. USCIS did not believe positions with level 1 wage are specialty H-1B positions as they are only entry-level with simple job duties. Our client is a small size company and the beneficiary is a MBA graduate. The case is difficult even in usual practice. Moreover, our RFE notice came in early September and no one expected this. Thankfully, our experienced attorney, after reading the notice carefully, found out the direction of how to response. We argued the position is both entry-level and professional (specialty). It’s normal some positions are entry level but professional knowledge needed. An entry level position does not necessarily mean it is not a professional position. We prepared documents to show the position is entry level with close supervision, as well as specialized and professional. Sure enough, USCIS approved our H-1B in less than two weeks after we submitted the response. Having an experienced lawyers’ help brings better result to the case.

In many cases, the success or failure of H-1B application depends not only on the qualifications of the applicant but also the petitioning company, the job and the salary. Most important of all how does your lawyer present your application to persuade the USCIS.

3. E-2 extension approval

We have got an approval for the second extension of our E-2 treaty investor visa. Our client actually did not do much business at her first extension and she did even less this time around. Clearly USCIS has placed less strict standard for E-2 visa than L-1 visa.

4. L-1 extension for 3 company managers

We got 3 approvals for managers from two companies. USCIS issued RFE (Request for Evidence) for two of the applicants. We simply wrote a letter to the USCIS addressing its questions and concerns as we did not have any new evidence to submit. In both cases the USCIS approved the petitions soon.

The USCIS asylum office had denied this client's asylum application and the US government was trying to deport her. But we showed the court that this person was a member of a church that was persecuted in her country and that if she were deported, she faced at least a 10% chance of being persecuted.

We appeared in court with three witnesses from the church. We had submitted written testimony from each of them. Because we introduced the witnesses to the court the government attorney agreed that our case was very strong and told the judge that he believed our client. The judge granted asylum in about 90 minutes.

This client will now be able to file petition for her husband who was ordered deported but remained in the US for the past 10 years.

Case No. 2

This is case is based on forced abortion and insertion of IUD. Client had an abortion in 1990 and subsequently had an IUD inserted without her consent. The Asylum office denied her case for inconsistencies and lack of details.

This is a very difficult case because the abortion was 27 years ago and her country has since changed it policy on how many child its citizens may legally have. In addition, client gave inconsistent testimonies not only in asylum interview but also at her immigration court hearing. Finally the court interpreter made several important mistakes at her first day hearing (this case was continued after first day hearing and it concluded this week). We have to listen to the hearing tape to point out the interpreter mistakes; to call a doctor to testify about the effect of an IUD.

In the end, the judge believed our client and concluded that even client's country may have changed it family planning policy, our client suffered past persecution and her IUD continues to cause pain.

Experience, competence and care for client are no substitute in any immigration cases, especially in immigration court.